A further thought on policing in Britain

“The background to this method of policing is that NuLab became increasingly irritated with the police detecting crime. This tended to militate against the working classes (few question the link between poverty and crime). Being so unutterably incompetent, NuLab were were unable to tackle poverty (unless by increasing it, they can claim to be tackling poverty). One solution to this was to make crime detection a more egalitarian process. By criminalising “anti-social” behavior that was more likely to committed by the middle classes (speeding, hunting etc), then issuing directives for police to ramp up their response to such infractions, the thinking was that this would highlight how criminality was not the preserve of the put upon working classes.

On top of this, there existed a situation whereby the number crunchers claimed that the fear of being a victim of crime far outweighed the reality of being a victim of crime. Hence the emphasis shifted away from tackling crime i.e oppressing the working classes, to tackling the fear of crime. This had a cheap solution: high visibility policing. It is this thinking that lead to the introduction of those decaffeinated police officers known as “PCSOs”, along with the requirement for high visibility vests worn with officers. This type of thinking also results in situations such as the Forest Gate incident, whereby the number of officers present seems to far outweigh the threat and the inclusion of the press in high profile operations. All of these things are designed to tackle the FEAR of crime, not crime itself.”

From one of our readers, “Fed_Up”, commenting on my recent encounter with the police. Thanks for the comments. The one here raises the issue of class. It is sometimes said that these days, the cops, or at least some of them, are the “paramilitary wing of the Guardian newspaper”. This represents a significant shift in the cultural/political standing of the police over my lifetime.

Consider this: there is no doubt that during the 1980s, when the Conservatives were in power, some of the police powers used at the time got on to the statute books with relatively little complaint from what I might loosely call “the right”. Not everyone was complacent, of course. Libertarian Alliance Director Sean Gabb and the LA’s founder, the late Chris R. Tame, were early in pointing out at the time that no consistent defence of liberty makes sense if it is confined purely to economics, a point that some Tories to this day don’t seem to grasp. While coppers were pinching Rastafarians in Brixton and hitting coalminers on the head in Yorkshire, a lot of the middle classes were happy to look the other way. As an unashamed middle class Brit with mortgage, happy marriage and decent job, I am the sort of person, I suppose, that has in a certain way been radicalised by the CCTV state, or “parking warden culture”, as one might call it. It is important to understand, however, that the sort of petty exercise of power has been going on, sometimes unremarked, for years. So I certainly don’t feel sorry for myself. I am, more than anything else, depressed at the fatuity of “security theatre” policing. It must, at one level surely, gnaw away at the morale and self respect of decent coppers. But there is no doubt that the role and status of the police has changed and so has the type of person that might be attracted to making a career in it.

I must say I am still stunned by the open admission of one commenter on my earlier posting that random searches are good for “fishing expeditions”. We were not very kind to him on the previous thread. Justifiably.

For a good take on what has been going on with policing in the US, Gene Healy of the CATO Institute think tank has a sharp analysis. Several US readers expressed their horror at what is happening here in Britain; I am afraid that things are not so great in parts of the US, either. And as for France, etc…..

35 comments to A further thought on policing in Britain

While coppers were pinching Rastafarians in Brixton and hitting coalminers on the head in Yorkshire, a lot of the middle classes were happy to look the other way.

Let’s not forget beating up hippies in Wiltshire. I would argue that that was the defining moment that said that our nation had changed forever. The militarised policing of the miners’ strike can (very) arguably be defended as a necessary response to a national civil emergency. The Battle Of The Beanfield was the signal that the “New Policing” was here to stay- that anybody the powers that be didn’t like could expect a fucking good kicking. Things had changed for good.

Libertarian Alliance Director Sean Gabb and the LA’s founder, the late Chris R. Tame, were early in pointing out at the time that no consistent defence of liberty makes sense if it is confined purely to economics, a point that some Tories to this day don’t seem to grasp.

This seems to still contain the assumption that the Tories are or were in some way liberals. They’ve never been social liberals, and there’s little evidence of economic liberalism either; the illusion occurs because some Tory big guvmint economic policies coincide with economic liberal policies. They abolished exchange controls, you know!

But there’s never been any serious desire on the part of the Conservatives to significantly shrink the state, nor to seriously cut taxes. They simply run the state economy in different way to the socialists, and to different ends. Tories don’t “grasp” libertarian ideas because they’ve no interest in doing so. They’ve no interest in social liberties, no interest in personal freedom for anyone besides themselves and, looking at economics, no interest in, for instance, pulling the rug of state support out from under the banking system. Maggie may have slept with The Road To Serfdom under her pillow, but she clearly didn’t actually understand a goddamned word of it.

Tories want a state micromanaged for the benefit of the middle and above classes. Old Socialists want a state micromanaged for the benefit of the working class. Progressives want a state micromanaged just for the sake of micromanaging everything, because they’re capering cretins like David Miliband, our next Prime Minister apparently, God help us.

RRS, not all SWAT teams are top notch. The SWAT team that was sent in response to the Columbine situation were downright cowardly. They sat around outside the school while those two monsters continued their killing spree.

Now I don’t expect a regular cop to be up to that kind of situation, but SWAT is trained for exactly that. Their job is confront that extra danger and bring a quick conclusion to it. They are paid extra not because they spend all their time training. They are paid extra because on the (what should be) rare situation they are needed, it’s far more dangerous than what a regular police officer is expected to deal with.

Now, instead of SWAT risking their lives, AS THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO, they are used to kick in the doors of little old ladies because some strung out crack addict said that’s where he bought his drugs.

Although Mr. Healy’s comments regarding the Posse Comitatus Act were very well taken, in the event, his concerns regarding the drift of policy proved groundless. The Posse Comitatus Act remains in force and no bills abrogating the act were ever actually introduced. Indeed, if it were not for the extraordinary incompetance of Gov. Blanco during the Katrina disaster, it is doubtful that any serious discussion of the topic would have arisen.

Now I don’t expect a regular cop to be up to that kind of situation, but SWAT is trained for exactly that. Their job is confront that extra danger and bring a quick conclusion to it. They are paid extra not because they spend all their time training. They are paid extra because on the (what should be) rare situation they are needed, it’s far more dangerous than what a regular police officer is expected to deal with.

AJNTSA…

1) The department with primary jurisdiction at Columbine High School did not have a full-time team. The rest, SWAT is a collateral duty for patrol or investigators.

2) Going into 1999, SWAT was trained to contain before entry and to then make deliberate entries. There was precious little experience with active shooters before then. Or, if they had trained for that, would you be pissing and moaning about SWAT training to terrorize the kids and shoot people without even trying to negotiate a surrender?

Since 1999, the rules have changed. But there’s no way I’m going into detail in a public forum. If you have a “rethinking” of SWAT that you’d like to offer, rather than some sort of pointless bitching…but I suspect that you don’t.

RRS:
Do you have a link to an example of state laws about when SWAT may or may not be used? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

I think what your are seeing in Britain is an attempt to rebrand crime.

The mandarins want people to stop thinking of crime as one individual violating the rights of another and start them to thinking of criminals as people who frustrate the will of the state. Creating a new class of middle class “criminals” whose “crimes” are merely frustrating the state helps this process along.

The sad truth is that the poor suffer more from genuine crime than all the other classes. Failing to punish criminals who are poor means unleashing them the law abiding poor. Law and order is the first responsibility of the state. (If it cannot provide that then it has no purpose for existing.) It especially owes that to those with the least.

“The modern ‘progressive’ state requires criminals to justify its existence.It’s a mutually symbiotic relationship.

When the state is short of criminals,it creates new classes of criminals to demonstrate its necessity,like smokers.”

~~~~~

A reading:

“‘But, after all, I did break one of your laws.’

‘Well, what do you think they’re for?’

Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden’s face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.

‘Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?’, said Dr. Ferris. ‘We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against — then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power that any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.’

Watching Dr. Ferris watch him, Rearden saw the sudden twitch of anxiety, the look that precedes panic, as if a clean card had fallen on the table from a deck Dr. Ferris had never seen before.”

Ian B, I agree with much of what you say, but you are being a tad too harsh on some – if not all – of the Thatcherites, including the old girl. You have to bear in mind that there is only so much a practical politician could have gone for; and Maggie did rather a lot (privatisation, scrapping the closed shop, fighting inflation, stiffing the Argentine junta, cutting ridiculous top tax ratesd, facing up to the Soviets, the EU, trying to shrink the state, abolishing some trade restrictioins, etc.) She was not as successful as some of her more wild-eyed supporters claim, but look where she started.
There is no way that Maggie would have been allowed to do stuff like decriminalise drugs, or scrap all forms of censorship. And remember how hard she and her allies found it to roll back the Welfare State, scrap the BBC and the rest of it. I remember those years when even a modest rollback in the state was treated with horror.

No, the problem lies with the broad political consensus in this nation, which is profoundly anti-liberty, and paranoid about the strange, the odd or the new. Look at the recent Samizdata thread we had on immigration. Even supposedly free-trade supporters were coming out with BS about how rising numbers of immigrants or whatever are some sort of terrible threat to “our” standard of living, etc.

“When we are controlled in our economic affairs we are controlled in everything”

Or to put it another way, everything is an economic activity. Laws against the sale of drugs, guns or organs are restrictions on trade just as much as laws controlling who may supply telephones, gas or run trains.

Thatcher may have twiddled at the margins a bit(*) – perhaps functioning as some sort of efficiency expert for the state. At best all I can say is she may have presided over a less drastic expansion of the state than we would have otherwise seen. Before Thatcher he state was stealing roughly half of everyone’s money and spending it on shite. The same was roughly true afterwards too.

(*) Although she seemingly “privatised” a bunch of industries such industries are still effectively run by the government via legislative and regulatory frameworks.

Or to put it another way, everything is an economic activity. Laws against the sale of drugs, guns or organs are restrictions on trade just as much as laws controlling who may supply telephones, gas or run trains.

David, you will get no argument from me on that. The problem is persuading others of said. In a country as cretinised by socialism as Britain, that is pretty difficult.

Thatcher may have twiddled at the margins a bit(*) – perhaps functioning as some sort of efficiency expert for the state.

A bit more than “twiddling”, I think (though even Mrs T. would concede that much, much more should have been done). Take these: abolition of closed shop, reduction of inflation, removal of exchange controls, removal of the Sunday shopping ban; sale of council houses, cutting of the top rates of tax, abolition of wealth tax, deregulation of the City; sale of major industries such as steel, energy, coal and airlines, telecoms. Yes, some of these areas are still somewhat regulated, but there is more competition than before. And add to that for a while at least, Britain has had a more entrepreneurial, pro-market culture than in years. Consider those shows like The Apprentice or Dragon’s Den. Okay, they may be crap, but they imply an interest in business that just did not exist in the 1970s.

The downside has been on the growth of police power, the growth of regulatory organisations and the failure, which I believe is damning, to significantly reduce the welfare state and abolish organisations like the BBC, Arts Council, and local education authorities. As Sean Gabb has argued, these organisations provide much of the living for the “enemy class” of public sector workers and executives that make up Labour’s core vote.

But bear in mind that Maggie had 11 years in power to do all this and was ultimately leading a very imperfect thing known as the Tory party.

JP,
Thanks for the last comment. The Tory party is and was very imperfect. You don’t hear much about wets anymore though. I suspect they’re nearly all a bit moist these days. Or utterly corrupt or complete nutcases.

There is no way that Maggie would have been allowed to do stuff like decriminalise drugs, or scrap all forms of censorship.

I don’t think there’s any evidence she or her administrations would have liked to. They tightened censorship considerably and extended the drugs laws in conformity with, if not with quite the same hysteria as, the contemporary US War on Drugs.

Signs of a generalised libertarianism are clearer on the present Tory front bench, but they are not mad enough to make their private convictions into party policy. We should expect only liberalisation by stealth from them.

“Not allowed” in the 80s context might well have meant blocked by the party, but parties have less power now. (Witness how enfeebled the Europhiliac Tories are, despite their entrenchments.) But nowadays it does not mean forbidden by some overweaning power, but prevented by electoral calculation. The hegemonic discourse is authoritarian populism, because we have too much democracy and too much concentration of power.

By criminalising “anti-social” behavior that was more likely to committed by the middle classes (speeding, hunting etc), then issuing directives for police to ramp up their response to such infractions, the thinking was that this would highlight how criminality was not the preserve of the put upon working classes.

i’m not sure i can agree with this – Anti Social behaviour orders were and are aimed at the (not working class) welfare class and their disruptive children. I live in inner city Leeds and since they were introduce we have seen cases of personal robbery plumment.

I am bound to say that when I joined the service, over 20 years ago I had no real concept of liberty. It was there on the outer limits of my consciousness only through the lyrics of Neal Peart of Rush. There doesn’t seem to be the underpinning of the concept in the wider society, (certainly not in the way that the US has) and the concept doesn’t seem to have any currency at all within the police service (IMHO). The thinking seems to be: Well if this measure increases our chances of success (in whatever lumpen and dozy initiative we are launching this week) then surely it must be a good thing, ‘cos we are the good guys, right?
My sense is that this situation has got worse since the introduction of the European Convention of Human Rights. Whilst much regard is paid to this, the thinking goes “Does this activity breach ECHR?” not “Is this activity a unjustifiable encroachment of people’s liberty”.
This is the difference between principle and practice.
For instance Article 8 states:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

This appears clear and unambiguous, however the following paragraph states:
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Whoooaaa! With very little political sophistry you can justify just about any unwarranted and intrusive state activity with those provisos. (Read again and see if you can now understand the inexorable rise of the health fascists…) In fact RIPA (the act used by Local Authorities to spy on a family for trying to get their child into the best local school) was enacted to codify the principles of ECHR into British law. The loopholes are all there to be exploited. Without that underpinning concept of liberty within society and law enforcement, those loopholes are bound to be exploited.

Although I came to a lot of conclusions about freedom and liberty under my own steam, I only was only exposed to Libertarian principles about 5 years ago (via the internet). I can’t remember any time a colleague of mine raised the issue of people’s liberty, the only concerns I hear is if any activity breaches ECHR (which is a document for justifying state oppression and intrusion IMHO). Whilst considering ECHR is the proper legal approach, one would hope that there is scope to look more broadly at the issue. The problem is that there is no libertarian reference points in society or the Police service as a catalyst for broader thinking.

The mandarins want people to stop thinking of crime as one individual violating the rights of another and start them to thinking of criminals as people who frustrate the will of the state.

Though they’d never put it that way, of course. “The will of the people”. Shove in a “British”, “Scottish”, “Welsh”, etc. if you don’t want to sound too Socialist.

The sad truth is that the poor suffer more from genuine crime than all the other classes. Failing to punish criminals who are poor means unleashing them the law abiding poor. Law and order is the first responsibility of the state. (If it cannot provide that then it has no purpose for existing.) It especially owes that to those with the least.

It has been announced today that Ms Smith is to appoint another 300 “anti-terrorism” officers, presumably police officers who would not anything except remain vigilant for conspiring Samizdata contributors driving along Millbank.

I can not help but wonder if what Mr Pearce was subjected to was a deliberate gambit by the Met to demonstrate the need for the extra numbers of officers – a demonstration done by not aggravating the Muslim communities but by falling back on aggravating the placid UK middle classes instead.

What we need is another Brixton riot. The riots of 1980s got rid of the suspect laws. Nothing like a couple of dead coppers to limit the state.

Have been puzzling why the Libertarian message is not more widespread…I think I understand why, now. Obviously the murder of some state employees, who generally try to do their best they can in the rather strange situations they often find themselves, is far more preferable than a bit of civil engagement, eh? It is not the front line coppers who set the agenda for the authoritarian approach of the state. If mindless violence is your fervent desire, at least try and channel it in the right direction.

Talking of the latest fabbo Home Office initiative, there is little doubt which way the wind is blowing. The initial report on the BBC news website had this nugget from Norman Bettison, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police as he welcomed the initiative:

“”We need to strengthen the capacity of neighbourhood policing teams to enhance engagement with communities and ensure effective information sharing with other partners.

“Preventing extremism cannot be for the police alone, but relies on effective delivery in coordination with local government, with community groups, education providers and others.”

Now, I don’t know a single colleague who speaks in the terms of the first paragraph, it is unadulterated NuLab speak, all wind and hooray words of no substance. There is a lot of simmering resentment amongst front line officers regarding the politicisation of the police, but those at the top seem to positively embrace it. In terms of the second paragraph, it seems that of the various groups being “relied” on, the general public are excluded. Now, am wondering why a Chief Constable feels he can no longer rely on the general public to assist his crime fighting efforts….surely nothing to do with the experience of Jonathon Pearce, shared by many others and other victims of similar futile and aggravating police initiatives?

Bristol kicked off the season, when the Black and White Cafe, home to Rastas, Pros and illegal booze, got raided one time too often.
It was described instantly as a “Race Riot”
It wasn’t.
It was community action against the heavy handed policing.
The heavy handedness was coming from on high.
The guys on the beat thought that leaving it all alone was the best solution.
Well it all kicked off and Police cars got burnt and shops and businesses looted.
Arrests were made and a charge of Riot laid.
Now the crime of Riot had not been prosecuted for over a century at that point, and was only wheeled out on this occasion, because Avon and Somerset police had decided to save a bit of money and put their vehicles on third party the month before, rather than fully comprehensive.
The only way they could get their money back on their burnt out vehicles was under a clause in the Riot act for compensation for loss and damage.
I live five minutes up the hill from St Pauls and saw the riots first hand.
Not so much a riot, more a spot of ghetto shopping.
I have a pic somewhere of a rasta handing a portable tv to a little old lady out of a shop window ,and she saying ta very much love!
Now I worked in the Crown Court at the time and when we got the depositions, (3 feet high, I kid you not!) the fifteen charged with consiracy to riot, were the “usual suspects” pimps, dealers, recievers and burglars. All the names very familiar to us Court staff.
Now they were all crims of one sort or another, but definately not guilty as charged.
Each and every one of the defendants was aquitted.
And the jury, some of us Court officials (well me and Sam, he was jamacian) went to the celebratory party at…
Yep the Black and White!
Their main radical defence lawyer Rudy Neuarienn (spelin?) had his wallet lifted (theres gratitude for you!) and had to borrow the train fare back to London from the Prosecuting Barrister( yep he was there as well and didn’t believe it either!)
We know how to treat well meaning radical leftie lawyers in Bristol!
Anyway the point is that it is a politicised senior management that fucks everything up.
The footsoldiers know well enough how to “Police” our communities in a fair and rational way. If allowed.
Once they were.
Now they are not.

not a bad idea Julien, because it was even funnier than that.
I have never seen a trial conducted like it!
All the defendants turned up on the first day, but after that they came and went as they pleased.
None of them being notably early risers, some would just pop in for an hour in the afternoon, if they’d been down a Blues the night before.
They would leave the court when they felt like it too, for a fag brake (or something stronger) and the Judge did absolutely nothing about it. Well like the rest of us, he knew that this was a flashy show trial for the benefit of the Police, that was a complete waste of time and money.

Well like the rest of us, he knew that this was a flashy show trial for the benefit of the Police, that was a complete waste of time and money.

I didn’t think they needed a show trial. They already had two platinum albums by then. (Unless you were working for the court in the aftermath of the 1791 riots, but if you were you hide your age well)

You really do need to write a book about this. It sounds freaking HILARIOUS!

Who Are We?

The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.